1602289 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a man and his wife. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in China due to his leadership role in an unregistered Christian church. He alleged that his church had been operating in secret for years until late 2013 when members began to be arrested, leading to his departure from China in December 2013. The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's claims, which included his family's history of Christian faith, his own clandestine involvement in organising an underground church, and subsequent police questioning of his family after his departure.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a Christian and, if so, whether he faced harm in China due to his religious activities, specifically his involvement with an unregistered church. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of his claims and determine if he met the criteria for protection under the Migration Act. The wife's application was contingent on the success of her husband's claim, as she was considered a member of the same family unit.

The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the first applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act. However, it was satisfied that the second applicant, as the wife, was a member of the same family unit for the purposes of s.36(2)(b)(i). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant be found to satisfy s.36(2)(a) and the second applicant to satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) based on their family unit membership.